Protestantism

» pink101 - What Religionism Does

In response to Hate Speech? posted by redback:
.
I think, in the realms of purpose, that Religionism is a force that feeds the roots of prejudice in the minds of those followers that accept its teachings without question as the authority over their being.
.
How is that?
.
Think about what Religionism is. Generally, it is made up of ideology as it is created by the fundamentalist thinking of those in the extreme--the purists: ISTS and ISMS abound. I'm sure there are Koranists and Torahists just as there are Biblicists. The entire idea of an ism is that it is the authority by which one is guided throughout their walk in life.
.
The idea that the "God of the O.T." is a loving father has to be seen in who it is that are considered to be his children. You can cut this in any manner you please; but, the end result is that the father favors his own children over and above all others. Therefore, if you seek the favor of that god, you had best take a special attitude toward his children. The O.T. is all about the development of the Hebrew Children of God and how God deals with all those people that do not give in to their superiority over them.
.
But, Religionism doesn't only exist in the O.T.. It is also prevalent in other forms of theism; Christianity and Islam as well. It is the extreme wing of belief that grows out of Fundamentalism. What Religionism does where it rears its ugliness is to build prejudice for one people over an other or, to put it in reverse, to put one people under another.
.
This is what I mean when I use the term, Religionism.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - purpose

In response to What Religionism Does posted by pink101:

My purpose here is not simply to overflow with where others are coming from re religionism...that aint discussion...and I do think I do have 'it'.

My related comment was more towards not satisfying what you need and want here. US politics generally (boring) + religionism's impact...here and in the USA is far too broad to have scattergun discussions where I simply can't provide a condensed, coherent view within Mind & Soul based on my experience with M & S.

"Mum, someone's bashing me over the head with a...(baseball bat)!!!" will always, for me, involve at least 3 sides to the coin. Undue focus on 'religionism's' input maintains a victim status and...one side.

When I look at 'purpose' (or program), there is for example, the Bible. In that context...all the -isms and -ists you caution against are part of the...process. When I ponder God who for all this little beige duck knows, could just as easily be more a Calathumpian God, the Bible is a...process. When I look at all the world's woes and how good deeds stuff up as well, then I don't see one...purpose. So, I don't know how to harmonise my approach with yours.

Brian mentioned to you and Boanerges to me, that many concepts (dogma?) here are simple. Well, most of this stuff must be far simpler for you than me as the use of ALL such terms are NOT 2nd nature to me. I have to re-check em and re-read the sentence. As I recall, Migisi rarely relies on them in her posts.

3C

Whoever God is, now and always was...surely(???) must be independent of a one-off recently ancient Bible and more than simply reactive to people's 'misdemeanours' and 'sins' in 2007...but this is STILL all unanswered stuff for me. So, if Biblicists, Religionists and the dumb Jeffs of the world all come up with different approaches to it, who do I shout this message to? If I repeat it 3276 times, does it gain in value?

I'm pushing it to believe there's more than six people who ACTIVELY pop in here and less who understand/read my posts. So, whatever the purpose of religionism, tis a greater purpose that beckons me.

In the case of 'father': I volunteered in another topic 'benevolent dictator'. And frequently, that I don't rate myself high in context. Maybe I'm a child of a lesser God I recall saying much earlier. So, while I understand 'father101', it aint the same thing as saying tis a simple Biblical concept. And my father aint the role model sought here.

Does some of this make some sense some of the time to some here???

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - purpose

In response to purpose posted by redback:
.

.
My purposes for coming here are to develop understanding about what it is that I believe.
.
I think we all operate in much the same way. When I write something that causes another participant to react against, I am posed with the challenge to defend my original point with further explanation or to modify it in some way or another. I think it has to be the same way for others--maybe not. In any case, the "process" I see that is active here is the development of my understandings about what it is that I believe. I'm not here to change anyone else's mind--only to develop my own. Maybe I'm totally selfish in that manner?
.
You keep mentioning that you are a beige person. So, is your hide tanned already while you're still alive? I know there's an old Aussie song about one's hide being tanned.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - purpose

In response to purpose posted by pink101:

"Tan my hide when I'm dead, Fred!"' ABC Actually, 'beige' seems more politically correct. There is simply an expression here about a little black duck I'm trying to avoid. OOPS!

I apply the term 'process and program' probably in a different way to you...along the lines of an outcome-focused approach we used at work. You do example a process in how you re-inforce your understandings here. SO the 'program' (the WHY and intended OUTCOME of it) involves what you (selfishly???) do with it. And so, I ponder your repeated return to 'religionism'.

Isn't there just a tad of 'persuade others' in your approach. To either change our minds OR after all this time to incite us to try harder to give you more for your purpose?

I come here to find what other people believe re faith and to simply learn more about their other ideas and them. I'm not perfect in that approach but my intentions don't change. M & S isn't always conducive to that hence my marginal membership. But tis a different focus or a more open ended purpose to coming here that I see between us...and between me and particularly BJ, Brian, Boanerges who come here.

"...I am posed with the challenge to defend my original point..."

It gets frustrating for me too given that most of mine are based on an unresolved question, not positions set in wet cement. I seem to answer more questions of others than are mine answered. I'm thickening my skin to it as I eye the 'OFF' switch. ABC

After recent discussion, maybe extremes of 'religionism' started with Cain and even overlays Eve's cookie baking. Today, religionism in Iraq factors in both Islamic and Christian, doesn't it. But refer to my earlier post and the chicken & egg.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Honestly and Firmly

In response to purpose posted by redback:
.
Isn't there just a tad of 'persuade others' in your approach. To either change our minds OR after all this time to incite us to try harder to give you more for your purpose?
.
I think to try harder to prove me wrong or, at least, to force me to do a better job of explaining my self. Either way, I benefit. And, if in the process, I change my mind or some others change their mind, then, we all benefit.
.
I honestly and firmly believe that Religionism is THE major problem with which we are faced in the world today.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Honestly and Firmly

In response to Honestly and Firmly posted by pink101:

And in deference to the grand old timer on this site, I'll let you have the last word on this topic.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Fight For Power

In response to Honestly and Firmly posted by redback:
.
Ain't you the one?
.
Have you ever heard of The King's Book of Sport?
.
It expresses an interesting epoch regarding the fight for power over the people that has been the historic rage between religion and government.
.
Go here and scroll down to the date 1618:
http://www.reformed.org/books/hetheringt...
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Fight For Power

In response to Fight For Power posted by pink101:
.
Fascinating account, Pink. Especially this:
.
(quote)... "Queen Elizabeth disapproved of preaching, lest it should teach the people to think, and perhaps to inquire into matters of State. King James aimed at the same result by making their only leisure day, when they might possibly attempt the dangerous practice of cultivating their minds, a day of mere recreation. The reason is obvious. Thinking men cannot be slaves; and both these sovereigns were desirous of establishing a complete despotism. Religious men must think, and think solemnly and loftily; therefore, to prevent this, religion must give place to giddy mirth, and God's hallowed day must be profaned by every kind of idle recreation... And what must be said of the High Church party, who lent their aid in this fearful desecration and despotic scheme? Were they the friends of pure and holy religion, of rational improvement, of public freedom?" (end)

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Sir Hudibras

In response to Fight For Power posted by Migisi:
.
I knew your mind would allow you to check out the information included at that site.
.
Check out this Sir Hudibras site for more about thinking in those days:
.http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/hud/H...
.
Off to the gym.
.
Al Gore is holding a press conference in a half hour or so. Check it out if you can. Probably about his Nobel Prize for his work on global warming.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Sir Hudibras

In response to Sir Hudibras posted by pink101:

.
When I think of all the scientists who've studied global warming for decades, and dedicated their lives to the research that Gore used to make his movie --- THEY deserve the Nobel, not Gore.

-- posted by Migisi